Personalization — a paradigm that has been widely and successfully embraced in other areas of human activity, and primarily on social media — may be ready for the law. Social media as a data source to support personalized law is only suitable for a few areas if life. In those areas, however, personalized standards bear enormous potential.
Many users do not realize that by creating a social media account, they are entering into a legally binding agreement with the platform. It might thus be time to radically rethink the principle of contractual informality online. Social media contracts may regain their importance, and users might become more aware of the contractual implications of clicking on the ‘I Agree’ button.
The social media landscape is changing. The ‚public forum‘ is now filled with citizens selling products, promoting services, charging for subscriptions, and sometimes seeking attention in ways which may not be socially desirable. We ask: How can a space that is becoming increasingly commercialised, monetised, and is a source of income for many nevertheless be fair?
Four arguments of either explicit or implicit importance in encouraging states to engage in Treaty reform in this ‘reform period’ are of decisive importance again now. Many of these arguments have already found their way into political discourse (for example into the cautious opening of the German government to Treaty reform) while others have not. The key to making the national case for Treaty reform may therefore lie in demonstrating to the Member States that these factors make opening-up the Treaties in their national interest.
The newly published compromise text of the Asylum Procedures Regulation (APR) suggests to render border procedures mandatory in some cases, while also permitting first-entry states to derogate from them once their “adequate capacity” is reached. This adaptable approach to the use of border procedures seeks to resolve a long-standing disagreement between central EU countries and first-entry states. While the former consider the obligatory use of border procedures necessary to prevent onwards or ‘secondary’ movement of asylum-seekers, southern EU states argue that their mandatory use would place a further strain on their resources and overburden their capacities for processing asylum claims. This blogpost first explains the problems with border procedures, reviews their role in increasing responsibility of first-entry states, and explains why the new compromise Draft is unlikely to resolve the disagreement between first-entry states and other Members States.
Ex ante, the July 2022 ruling by the Court of Justice of the EU on Passenger Name Records had a very specific scope — the use of passenger name records by government agencies. Upon closer inspection, however, it has important implications for the governance of algorithms more generally. That is true especially for the proposed AI Act, which is currently working its way through the EU institutions. It highlights, ultimately, how national, or in this case European, legal orders may limit the scope for international regulatory harmonization and cooperation.
The Ligue des droits humains ruling regarding automated predictive threat detection has implications for the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) Regulation and the EU Commission’s proposal for a Regulation on combating online child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Both legal instruments entail the use of potentially self-learning algorithms, and are spiritual successors to the PNR Directive (the subject of Ligue des droits humains).
Core state functions, such as law enforcement, are increasingly delegated to private actors. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the development and use of security technologies. This public-private collaboration harbours detrimental consequences for fundamental rights and the rule of law; in particular, for the principle of legality. The policy outcomes which result from this collaboration are not democratically accountable, and allow human rights to be superseded by private, profit-driven interests.
In Ligue des droits humains, the Court of Justice of the European Union explicitly addresses the fact that the use of AI and self-learning risk models may deprive data subjects of their right to effective judicial protection as enshrined in the Charter. The importance of this judgment cannot be understated for non-EU citizens and at the European borders more generally.
Various EU bodies have started to appreciate the threat the anti-constitutional challenge poses to fundamental rights and the entire EU. The Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), the body primarily tasked with watching over fundamental rights, chose a different path and committed to collaboration and to legitimizing an illiberal regime. As earlier contributors to FRA reports on Hungary, we felt the responsibility to call attention to this unfortunate development: The FRA recently committed to rely on reporting from two governmental-controlled institutions, the National University of Public Service and the Hungarian ombudsperson.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters